Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Would you replace a homosexual gene in your child if given the choice? Watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Would you replace a homosexual gene in your child if given the choice?
    Yes
    165
    49.11%
    No
    171
    50.89%

    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joey11223)
    at what age do you believe a conscious decision occurred for you to become heterosexual (assuming you are)?

    When it comes to sexual fetishes/paraphilias, are these also conscious decisions?
    More than likely when somebody hits puberty, and for fetishes and paraphilias, they probably are conscious decisions, but I'm no expert on this matter, just making informed assumptions.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CDin19)
    More than likely when somebody hits puberty, and for fetishes and paraphilias, they probably are conscious decisions, but I'm no expert on this matter, just making informed assumptions.
    The first part was more aimed at you personally, could you say at what age you made that decision on your sexuality?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kalail)
    So what you are basically saying is that being homosexual gives us an 'inferior' life to all your 'perfect' straight people lives? Also, who are you to decide whose way of life is best?
    I am the child's father. I also, by the way, will teach him to read because I feel that a literate way of life is better than an illiterate way of life.

    I will also teach him to look both ways before crossing the street despite some people preferring a daredevil lifestyle. I will also instill in him a sense of morality and personal responsibility despite others disagreeing with me.

    So who am I to decide whose way of life is best? I am a parent, just like every parent who ever raised their child in the entire history of the universe, passing on values and knowledge to hopefully better their existence.

    I should also note the correct use of single quotation marks, since you very kindly corrected the English of another person. You use double quotation marks to quote someone normally unless you are quoting within a quote.

    I also never said straight lives were perfect, so I'm not certain who you're quoting. Or that gay lives were inferior - Merely more difficult.

    What it sounds like is that you are desperate to be offended. Can I suggest you may have chosen the wrong thread if that's the case? The question asked was very specific and I'm afraid you aren't going to change my mind. You can, of course, claim anyone who disagrees with you is homophobic, but I'm afraid that isn't the case and the ability to shout down opposing viewpoints simply by claiming some form of prejudice doesn't work any more.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    More people have voted yes than no, what a horrible time to be alive.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LeoAngliae)
    It's an intellectually fatuous position to say that you would exercise a right you do not claim for yourself. If you have no confidence in the justness of such a right then it is puerile to say you would blindly just go along with it and use it, without exercising any actual moral agency on your own part
    That's only if you assume everyone's main priority in life is to be perfectly moral. I think it's quite an unrealistic assumption. I think lots of people would exercise a right they are given, not because they have the confidence that it is morally correct for them to have it, but rather just simply because they or their loved ones are better off that way.

    I'm not at all ashamed to admit that if I had children, I'd care for their personal well-being a lot more than that of the millions of unknown strangers who make up society as a whole.


    Or perhaps I might exercise a right, not because I actively believe it is moral for me to have it, but because I anticipate that lots of other people will be exercising it. Simple example: if the state made it totally optional to pay tax (I don't believe they should) I certainly would not pay tax, and I don't think many people in their right mind would. I would think that me paying it on my own would accomplish nothing other than disadvantaging me.

    Similarly, in a case such as this gene replacement scenario, it might be the most moral if nobody was given this right, or even if they were, nobody exercised it. But I anticipate that 50% of people will exercise it, whether moral or not. So regardless of which option I choose myself, the consequences to society are hardly any different, because society isn't going to club together with me and all choose the same thing. There's little marginal benefit in myself forfeiting a choice that I've been given, the only consequence is a disadvantage to myself and my own children.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joey11223)
    at what age do you believe a conscious decision occurred for you to become heterosexual (assuming you are)?

    When it comes to sexual fetishes/paraphilias, are these also conscious decisions?
    I don't think it's a valid piece of logic to suggest that, if being homosexual is a conscious decision, then being heterosexual must also be a conscious decision.

    It's not inconceivable that someone can be born as something by default (with no conscious decision) but then consciously choose to change it. For example, I grew up with certain "phobias" that I didn't consciously choose to have; however, I did consciously choose to overcome them. I don't see why the same can't apply to "-phillias" too.

    I'm not saying I think homosexuality is a conscious decision; I wouldn't know. I just don't agree with the logic.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Everyone banging on about overpopulation this and but homo that, i wouldnt change my kid because thats what my child is. If i mess about with the genes (assuming a gay gene) I take away what my child is, i make them someone different and that to me is unconscionable. Unless its a genetic defect (in which case i may consider) then no, any natural occurrence - and yes homosexuality is natural - is just part of who my child will be.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    No. Because I'd accept my kid for everything they are.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I don't think it's a valid piece of logic to suggest that, if being homosexual is a conscious decision, then being heterosexual must also be a conscious decision.

    It's not inconceivable that someone can be born as something by default (with no conscious decision) but then consciously choose to change it. For example, I grew up with certain "phobias" that I didn't consciously choose to have; however, I did consciously choose to overcome them. I don't see why the same can't apply to "-phillias" too.

    I'm not saying I think homosexuality is a conscious decision; I wouldn't know. I just don't agree with the logic.
    Your post lacks maturity.

    If you are to accept that heterosexuality exists by default, you must necessarily accept the same for homosexuality too. Both are attractions to a specific gender, differing in that alone. There is no basis to saying you're born heterosexual but then choose to be gay. What are we? 10? If people had that choice, no one would make it, particularly in countries like Saudi Arabia and whatnot.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Ordinarily, no; but ginger and gay? That's practically child-abuse.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    This thread is disgusting. If you would change your child because of their sexuality, you don't deserve to be a parent.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't get apocalyptic over this. If the question was "would you abort your child because they had the homosexual gene?" and a majority answered yes, then I'd be worried.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    Everyone banging on about overpopulation this and but homo that, i wouldnt change my kid because thats what my child is. If i mess about with the genes (assuming a gay gene) I take away what my child is, i make them someone different and that to me is unconscionable. Unless its a genetic defect (in which case i may consider) then no, any natural occurrence - and yes homosexuality is natural - is just part of who my child will be.
    If you take away the genetic defect, you are also taking away what your child is, because you are still interfering
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    I wouldn't get apocalyptic over this. If the question was "would you abort your child because they had the homosexual gene?" and a majority answered yes, then I'd be worried.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I would, depending on how far into pregnancy I was
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by supernerdural)
    This thread is disgusting. If you would change your child because of their sexuality, you don't deserve to be a parent.
    How would you answer if the thread asked 'if you had to choose your child's sexuality, what would you choose?'
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Your post lacks maturity.

    If you are to accept that heterosexuality exists by default, you must necessarily accept the same for homosexuality too.
    Both are attractions to a specific gender, differing in that alone. There is no basis to saying you're born heterosexual but then choose to be gay. What are we? 10? If people had that choice, no one would make it, particularly in countries like Saudi Arabia and whatnot.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Why? Lots of things exist by default, whilst an apparently equivalent thing doesn't. It was no conscious decision that I was born with black hair, for example. But if you saw me walking around with green hair, it probably was a conscious decision to deviate from the way I was born.

    So I still think, at best, it is incomplete logic, to say that if one thing exists by default, then so must the other thing. Even if you happen to be right, the argument itself doesn't work.

    Also I disagree that, if people had the choice between being homosexual or heterosexual, nobody would choose homosexuality. Just take a look at this thread's poll results.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gavin2016)
    So if the doctors told you that your son due to be born would be homosexual as he had a dominant gene for homosexuality. Would you replace that gene with another of yours (a straight version) if given the choice by doctors to stop your child becoming homosexual later in life? Hypothetical situation of course.
    Isn't it still commonly believed homosexuality has environmental factors from early time in the womb?
    Not to discount genetic ones but basically sexuality is a bit more complicated than flicking a switch.

    Still to answer your question, no.

    Homosexuality, at least in this part of the world is no real issue. I have absolutely no moral, spiritual or social issue with it.
    Even if society was still grumpy about gays, I'd not do it, simply because I still don;t buy those arguments against it, and to do so (even if to apparently ease that child's passage through life) would not only condone those flawed justifications, but also perpetrate an opinion that makes life harder for the homosexuals who exist and didn't have the chance to just "turn it off".

    Now if there was a paedophilia gene in my kid, I'd have that turned off in a heartbeat. For the sake of my kid and every other kid. Genetic tampering is not just justified, I think it's a moral obligation, if it solves a genuinely detrimental condition (be it a disability or thoroughly damaging sexuality).
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    I would, depending on how far into pregnancy I was
    I wouldn't go that far, but I think that's another possible q.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    My friend wouldn't because everything happens for a reason.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    In all honesty I would, because I worry that if my child was like that I wouldn't be able to deal with it and worry that it would mean I wouldn't love them as much and they would feel like we couldn't bond properly because of that. Hard to say though really. If you love your child I guess you'd love them whatever their sexual orientation but it's quite worrying that that'd be an issue for me. i don't know tbh
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.